Allowed

Sri.C.Venkataswamy v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC29 Nov 2024WP/31121/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Purchaser challenged resumption of land under the PTCL Act. The court held that regularization of unauthorized occupation is not a grant to a Scheduled Caste member under the Land Grant Rules, so the PTCL Act did not apply; impugned resumption orders were set aside.

What did the court decide?

Impugned resumption and appellate orders quashed/set aside; application for resumption rejected.

Sri.C.Venkataswamy Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:49109 WP No. 31121 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 31121 OF 2015 (SCST)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI.C.VENKATASWAMY SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs.,

¶8

1(a) SMT. RAMAKKA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, W/O LATE C.VENKATSWAMY,

¶9

1(b) SRI.JYOTHEESH.N.V. AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O LATE C.VENKATSWAMY,

¶10

1(c) SRI.SHRIDHAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O LATE C.VENKATSWAMY,

¶11

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

1(d) SRI.SUDHAKARA.V., AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O LATE C.VENKATSWAMY,

¶13

ALL ARE R/AT NERIGA VILLAGE, SARJAPUR HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-562 125.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. SIDDHARTH SUMAN., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT BANGALORE-560 001.

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:49109 WP No. 31121 of 2015

¶19

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSINER BANGALORE SOUTY SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶20

SRI SIDDALINGAPPA MAJOR IN AGE S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA @ VENKATARAYAPPA KUGOOR VILLAGE AND POST, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT-562 106.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. HEMALATHA.V., AGA FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI. P. MAHESHA., ADVOCATE FOR R-3)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1.QUASH THE ORDER DATED.20.12.2011 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ORDER DATED.23.3.2015 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN APPEAL/CASE NO.K/S.C/S.T(A) 188/2011-12 (ANNEXURE-B) AND TO DISMISS THE APPLICATION/APPEAL IN CASE NO.K/S.C/S.T(A)27/2011-12 FILED BY THE R-3, ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

An application for resumption was filed which was accepted and the land has been ordered to be resumed. This order has been confirmed in appeal and, as a consequence, the purchaser is before this

¶28

Court by way of this Writ Petition.

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:49109 WP No. 31121 of 2015

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioners points out that even according to the impugned orders, the land in question was regularized in favor of the grantee because he was in unauthorized possession and the land was not granted because he belonged to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. He submits that since only those lands which are granted to persons in Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes because they belong to that particular category, come within the purview of the PTCL Act, the impugned proceedings are one without jurisdiction.

¶31

This Court in W.P.No.16184/2024 has already held that if the unauthorized occupation of a person over a land is regularised by the Government, merely because that person is unauthorized person belongs to the Scheduled Caste, it cannot be considered as a granted land because the land had not been regularised because he belonged to Scheduled Caste. In order for a land to be a “granted land” as defined

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:49109 WP No. 31121 of 2015

¶33

under the Act, the land should necessarily have to be lands which are earmarked under the Land Grant

¶34

Rules for being granted to persons belonging to the Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe. If the Government merely permits the regularization of a person’s unauthorized possession, it cannot amount to a granted land under the Act.

¶35

In the light of the above, the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained and they are accordingly set aside. The application for resumption is therefore rejected and the writ petition is allowed.

¶36

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶37

GSR

¶38

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

Sri.C.Venkataswamy v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.C.Venkataswamy v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Venkatesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Bank Officers Co-Operative Housing Vs Karanataka State Commission for

Smt. Pushpa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. T Bangarappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Mr Gordon Noel Brown Vs Nil

Smt. Rajashree v Vs Sri Chandrashekar S